Revolting consumers: a revisionist account of the 1925 ban on photography in English and Welsh courts and its implications for debate about who is able to produce, manage and consume images of the trial

This paper offers a revisionist history of the banning of photography in English and Welsh courts in 1925 and explores the contention that a complete rationale for the ban has never been adequately articulated. While existing accounts of the ban have placed emphasis on the outrage caused by press co...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of law in context 2018-12, Vol.14 (4), p.559-580
1. Verfasser: Mulcahy, Linda
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 580
container_issue 4
container_start_page 559
container_title International journal of law in context
container_volume 14
creator Mulcahy, Linda
description This paper offers a revisionist history of the banning of photography in English and Welsh courts in 1925 and explores the contention that a complete rationale for the ban has never been adequately articulated. While existing accounts of the ban have placed emphasis on the outrage caused by press coverage of a handful of sensational murder trials, this paper offers the first comprehensive analysis of photographs of trial scenes in the decades leading up to the ban. In doing so, it argues that the exposure of the legal system to scrutiny by the press and public, made possible by new technologies and reporting practices, was much more pervasive than has previously been suggested. It also contends that, although parliamentarians claimed that the purpose of the ban was to protect vulnerable members of the public, it actually did a much better job of preserving the interests of the legal, political and social elite, including judges, against a backdrop of fears about an increasingly disrespectful populace. More particularly, it is suggested that the ban allowed the state to take back its monopoly over the production, management and consumption of images of judges and other key actors in the courtroom in an effort to re-impose social order and retain the mystery of law.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S1744552318000241
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_rmit_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2136851089</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S1744552318000241</cupid><informt_id>10.3316/agispt.20221108077712</informt_id><sourcerecordid>2136851089</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-625b44f6969ad43d4ff6bcc10db8e771286984397c46ae70a05bb2e4fa7b9bb03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1Uctu1TAQjRBIlMIHsBuJLRf8yosdqgpFqoREW7G0xo6TuErsYDut-ov9Kpze27JAXc3o6JwzZ2aK4j0lnyih9ecLWgtRlozThhDCBH1RHG3Qriw5ffnUM_66eBPjNSG8aXh7VNz_Mjd-StYNoL2L62xC_AIIwdzYaL2zMQFq7VeXwPeQRgO0ZSUodOAdLKNPfgi4jHdgHZy6YbJxBHQd_DZT7rIypPgA2FztvExWY8rOEXofoDMKkwFUfk1wO3qwmawmA8nDEny3avMRZnQ4mAeTQ8hslJH4GCkFi9Pb4lWPUzTvDvW4uPp2enlytjv_-f3HydfznRa8TLuKlUqIvmqrFjvBO9H3ldKakk41pq4pa6q2EbyttajQ1ARJqRQzosdatUoRflx82PvmfH9WE5O8zku6PFIyyqumpKRpM4vuWTr4GIPp5RJy6HAnKZHby-R_L8uas70mzDZJHGxckowGgx6ldflcG-zDIDtvNxvOafVIY4QxmieTetshW_HDeJxVsN1g_qV8PsBfehKz9A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2136851089</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Revolting consumers: a revisionist account of the 1925 ban on photography in English and Welsh courts and its implications for debate about who is able to produce, manage and consume images of the trial</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Mulcahy, Linda</creator><creatorcontrib>Mulcahy, Linda</creatorcontrib><description>This paper offers a revisionist history of the banning of photography in English and Welsh courts in 1925 and explores the contention that a complete rationale for the ban has never been adequately articulated. While existing accounts of the ban have placed emphasis on the outrage caused by press coverage of a handful of sensational murder trials, this paper offers the first comprehensive analysis of photographs of trial scenes in the decades leading up to the ban. In doing so, it argues that the exposure of the legal system to scrutiny by the press and public, made possible by new technologies and reporting practices, was much more pervasive than has previously been suggested. It also contends that, although parliamentarians claimed that the purpose of the ban was to protect vulnerable members of the public, it actually did a much better job of preserving the interests of the legal, political and social elite, including judges, against a backdrop of fears about an increasingly disrespectful populace. More particularly, it is suggested that the ban allowed the state to take back its monopoly over the production, management and consumption of images of judges and other key actors in the courtroom in an effort to re-impose social order and retain the mystery of law.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1744-5523</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1744-5531</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S1744552318000241</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>20th century ; Bans ; Cameras ; Criminal justice, Administration of ; Debates ; Fair trial ; Photography ; Pistorius, Oscar ; Social media ; Social networks ; Technological innovations ; Trials</subject><ispartof>International journal of law in context, 2018-12, Vol.14 (4), p.559-580</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-625b44f6969ad43d4ff6bcc10db8e771286984397c46ae70a05bb2e4fa7b9bb03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744552318000241/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,776,780,27901,27902,55603</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mulcahy, Linda</creatorcontrib><title>Revolting consumers: a revisionist account of the 1925 ban on photography in English and Welsh courts and its implications for debate about who is able to produce, manage and consume images of the trial</title><title>International journal of law in context</title><addtitle>International Journal of Law in Context</addtitle><description>This paper offers a revisionist history of the banning of photography in English and Welsh courts in 1925 and explores the contention that a complete rationale for the ban has never been adequately articulated. While existing accounts of the ban have placed emphasis on the outrage caused by press coverage of a handful of sensational murder trials, this paper offers the first comprehensive analysis of photographs of trial scenes in the decades leading up to the ban. In doing so, it argues that the exposure of the legal system to scrutiny by the press and public, made possible by new technologies and reporting practices, was much more pervasive than has previously been suggested. It also contends that, although parliamentarians claimed that the purpose of the ban was to protect vulnerable members of the public, it actually did a much better job of preserving the interests of the legal, political and social elite, including judges, against a backdrop of fears about an increasingly disrespectful populace. More particularly, it is suggested that the ban allowed the state to take back its monopoly over the production, management and consumption of images of judges and other key actors in the courtroom in an effort to re-impose social order and retain the mystery of law.</description><subject>20th century</subject><subject>Bans</subject><subject>Cameras</subject><subject>Criminal justice, Administration of</subject><subject>Debates</subject><subject>Fair trial</subject><subject>Photography</subject><subject>Pistorius, Oscar</subject><subject>Social media</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><subject>Technological innovations</subject><subject>Trials</subject><issn>1744-5523</issn><issn>1744-5531</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1Uctu1TAQjRBIlMIHsBuJLRf8yosdqgpFqoREW7G0xo6TuErsYDut-ov9Kpze27JAXc3o6JwzZ2aK4j0lnyih9ecLWgtRlozThhDCBH1RHG3Qriw5ffnUM_66eBPjNSG8aXh7VNz_Mjd-StYNoL2L62xC_AIIwdzYaL2zMQFq7VeXwPeQRgO0ZSUodOAdLKNPfgi4jHdgHZy6YbJxBHQd_DZT7rIypPgA2FztvExWY8rOEXofoDMKkwFUfk1wO3qwmawmA8nDEny3avMRZnQ4mAeTQ8hslJH4GCkFi9Pb4lWPUzTvDvW4uPp2enlytjv_-f3HydfznRa8TLuKlUqIvmqrFjvBO9H3ldKakk41pq4pa6q2EbyttajQ1ARJqRQzosdatUoRflx82PvmfH9WE5O8zku6PFIyyqumpKRpM4vuWTr4GIPp5RJy6HAnKZHby-R_L8uas70mzDZJHGxckowGgx6ldflcG-zDIDtvNxvOafVIY4QxmieTetshW_HDeJxVsN1g_qV8PsBfehKz9A</recordid><startdate>20181201</startdate><enddate>20181201</enddate><creator>Mulcahy, Linda</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181201</creationdate><title>Revolting consumers: a revisionist account of the 1925 ban on photography in English and Welsh courts and its implications for debate about who is able to produce, manage and consume images of the trial</title><author>Mulcahy, Linda</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-625b44f6969ad43d4ff6bcc10db8e771286984397c46ae70a05bb2e4fa7b9bb03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>20th century</topic><topic>Bans</topic><topic>Cameras</topic><topic>Criminal justice, Administration of</topic><topic>Debates</topic><topic>Fair trial</topic><topic>Photography</topic><topic>Pistorius, Oscar</topic><topic>Social media</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><topic>Technological innovations</topic><topic>Trials</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mulcahy, Linda</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>International journal of law in context</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mulcahy, Linda</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Revolting consumers: a revisionist account of the 1925 ban on photography in English and Welsh courts and its implications for debate about who is able to produce, manage and consume images of the trial</atitle><jtitle>International journal of law in context</jtitle><addtitle>International Journal of Law in Context</addtitle><date>2018-12-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>559</spage><epage>580</epage><pages>559-580</pages><issn>1744-5523</issn><eissn>1744-5531</eissn><abstract>This paper offers a revisionist history of the banning of photography in English and Welsh courts in 1925 and explores the contention that a complete rationale for the ban has never been adequately articulated. While existing accounts of the ban have placed emphasis on the outrage caused by press coverage of a handful of sensational murder trials, this paper offers the first comprehensive analysis of photographs of trial scenes in the decades leading up to the ban. In doing so, it argues that the exposure of the legal system to scrutiny by the press and public, made possible by new technologies and reporting practices, was much more pervasive than has previously been suggested. It also contends that, although parliamentarians claimed that the purpose of the ban was to protect vulnerable members of the public, it actually did a much better job of preserving the interests of the legal, political and social elite, including judges, against a backdrop of fears about an increasingly disrespectful populace. More particularly, it is suggested that the ban allowed the state to take back its monopoly over the production, management and consumption of images of judges and other key actors in the courtroom in an effort to re-impose social order and retain the mystery of law.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S1744552318000241</doi><tpages>22</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1744-5523
ispartof International journal of law in context, 2018-12, Vol.14 (4), p.559-580
issn 1744-5523
1744-5531
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2136851089
source HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete
subjects 20th century
Bans
Cameras
Criminal justice, Administration of
Debates
Fair trial
Photography
Pistorius, Oscar
Social media
Social networks
Technological innovations
Trials
title Revolting consumers: a revisionist account of the 1925 ban on photography in English and Welsh courts and its implications for debate about who is able to produce, manage and consume images of the trial
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T07%3A04%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_rmit_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Revolting%20consumers:%20a%20revisionist%20account%20of%20the%201925%20ban%20on%20photography%20in%20English%20and%20Welsh%20courts%20and%20its%20implications%20for%20debate%20about%20who%20is%20able%20to%20produce,%20manage%20and%20consume%20images%20of%20the%20trial&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20law%20in%20context&rft.au=Mulcahy,%20Linda&rft.date=2018-12-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=559&rft.epage=580&rft.pages=559-580&rft.issn=1744-5523&rft.eissn=1744-5531&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S1744552318000241&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_rmit_%3E2136851089%3C/proquest_rmit_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2136851089&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S1744552318000241&rft_informt_id=10.3316/agispt.20221108077712&rfr_iscdi=true